Two concepts borrowed from Everett Rogers' Communication of Innovations-heterophily and the role of change agents-are utilized to explain problems which welfare workers have in being influential family planning change agents for welfare mothers. These concepts are viewed as embedded in the social context of welfare department attempts to influence welfare mothers to use family planning and the related criticisms which welfare rights protagonists have recently voiced. Structured interviews with 58 welfare workqrs and 300 welfare mothers in one metropolitan Tennessee county reveal that heterophily characterizes these two groups in social and demographic characteristics, birth control attitudes, family size norms, and abortion attitudes. It is further suggested that this heterophily may partially account for welfare workers' limited conformity to the change agent role in family planning counseling with their clients. A number of innovative solutions are proposed to deal constructively with public welfare problems in family planning, some of which have shown promise in other health programs here and a broad.
References
1.
Bennis, W. G., et al. The planning of change: Readings in the applied behavioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962.
2.
Berscheid, E.Opinion change and communicator-communicatee similarity and dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 670-680.
3.
Blalock, H. M.Social statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
4.
Blau, P. M.Orientation towards clients in a public welfare agency. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1960, 5, 341-361.
5.
Brock, T. E.Communicator-recipient similarity and decision change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 3, 650-654.
6.
Brodber, E., & Wagner, N. N.The black family, poverty, and family planning: Anthropological impressions. Family Coordinator, 1970, 19, 168-172.
7.
Campbell, C. I., & Mustalish, A. C.Health education for minorities. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association meetings in New Orleans, Louisiana, October 20-24, 1974.
8.
Castor, J., & Hudson, P. S.Social work attitudes toward referral to planned parenthood. Social Science Review, 1971, 45, 302-309.
9.
Cowles, W. B., & Perking, G. W.Planned parenthood's present and future program: Our cooperative role with public health. American Journal of Public Health, 1967, 57, 467-473.
10.
Cypher, J., & Walton, R.Welfare rights and social work education. Social Work Today, 1973, 4, 394-398.
11.
Darity, W. A., & Turner, C. B.Knowledge related to birth control use: Homogeneity between males and females with implications for health education. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association meetings in New Orleans, Louisiana, October 20-24, 1974.
12.
Djuarini, S., et al. Report on the study of Dukuns in Central Java. Djakarta: Indonesia Planned Parenthood Association, 1971 (mimeo).
13.
Fawcett, J. T., & Somboonsuk, A.Thailand: Using family planning acceptors to recruit new cases. Studies in Family Planning, 1969, No. 39, 1-4.
14.
Freedman, R., & Takeshita, J. Y.Family planning in Taiwan: Tradition and change. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969.
15.
Friedson, E.Specialties without roots: The utilization of new services. Human Organization, 1959, 18, 112-116.
16.
Goldman, J., & Kogan, L. S.Public welfare and family planning. Family Planning Perspectives, 1971, 3, 19-31.
17.
Greenblatt, B.Family planning goals and social work roles. Family Planning Perspectives, 1972, 4, 54-59.
18.
Gustaveson, P. B.Implementation of family planning policy by public welfare. Monograph 8. Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1970.
19.
Handler, J. F.Reforming the poor; wefare policy, federalism, and morality. New York: Basic Books, 1972.
20.
Handler, J. F., & Hollingsworth, E. J.Stigma, privacy, and other attitudes of welfare recipients. Stanford Law Review, 1969, 22, 1-19.
21.
Haselkorn, F.Value issues for social work in family planning: An introductory note. In F. Haselkorn (Ed.), Family planning: The role of social work. New York: Adelphi University, 1968.
22.
Ho, M. K., & McDowell, E.The black worker-white client relationship. Clinical Social Work Journal, 1973, 1, 161-167.
23.
Huff, K. M., & Parker, J.Training indigenous workers as pediatric health educators in a low-income community. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association meetings in New Orleans, Louisiana, October 20-24, 1974.
24.
Hutcheson, R. H.Family planning services: Welfare and Health Departments working together. Public Welfare, 1970, 27, 157-161.
25.
Jafarey, S. A., et al. Use of medical-paramedical personnel and traditional midwives in Pakistan family planning programs. Demography, 1968, 5, 660-678.
26.
Lawrence, H.Comparative group leadership styles. Public Welfare, 1972, 30, 39-47.
27.
Lippitt, R., et al. The dynamics of planned change. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1958.
28.
Manisoff, M. T.Family planning training for social service. New York: Planned Parenthood-World Population, 1970.
29.
Mayfield, M.Family planning service in public welfare. Public Welfare, 1970, 27, 161-164.
30.
National Center for Health Statistics. Family planning reporting system, 1971. Tables 1-8, National and agency totals (Social and Rehabilitation Service, DHEW, Rockville, Md.) Washington, D.C.: GPO, February 1972.
31.
O'Donnell, E. J., & Reid, O. M.Citizen participation on public welfare boards and committees. Welfare in Review, 1971, 9, 1-9.
32.
Okada, L. M., & Sparer, G.Attitudes toward genocide: Its relation to fertility and utilization of family planning programs. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association meetings in New Orleans, Louisiana, October 20-24, 1974.
33.
Omran, A. R.The health theme in family planning. Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1971.
34.
Owen, R., & Scott, C. S.Collaboration between social work and anthropology in understanding and working with ethnic health behaviors. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association meetings in New Orleans, Louisiana, October 20-24, 1974.
35.
Paull, J.Recipients aroused: The new welfare rights movement. Social Work, 1967, 12, 101-106.
36.
Pearl, A., & Riesman, F.New careers for the poor: The nonprofessional in human service. New York. The Free Press, 1965.
37.
Phillips, P. B., & Foster, J.Training program for community health education aides. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association meetings in New Orleans, Louisiana, October 20-24, 1974.
38.
Piven, F., & Cloward, R. A.Regulating the poor. New York: Pantheon Books, 1971.
39.
Placek, P. J.Direct mail and information diffusion: Family planning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1974-75, 38, 548-561.
40.
Placek, P. J., & Hendershot, G. E.Public welfare and family planning: An empirical study of the 'broodsow' myth. Social Problems, 1974, 21, 658-673.
41.
Population Council, Inc.The. Selected questionnaires on knowledge, attitudes and practice of family planning. New York: The Council, 1967.
42.
Pratt, M.Partisan of the disadvantaged. Social Work, 1972, 17, 66-72.
43.
Public Law 90-248. Social Security amendments of 1967, title II, part I, section 201. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.
44.
Rogers, E. M.Communication of innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1971.
45.
Rogers, E. M.Communication strategies for family planning. New York: The Free Press, 1973.
46.
Rogers, E. M., & Svenning, L.Modernization among peasants: The impact of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
47.
Rubel, A. J., et al. The traditional birth attendant in metropolitan Cebu, The Philippines. In Steven Polgar (Ed.), Culture and population: A collection of current studies. Carolina Population Center Monograph 9. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1971.
48.
Ryder, N. B., & Westoff, C. F.Relationships among intended, expected, desired, and ideal family size: United States, 1965. Population Research, March 1969, pp. 1-7.
49.
Salloway, J. C.Income, ethnicity, and social networks as factors in health care utilization. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association meetings in New Orleans, Louisiana, October 20-24, 1974.
50.
Saucier, A.The qualifications and activities of caseworkers in a county welfare department. Social Service Review, 1971, 45, 184-193.
51.
State of Tennessee. Tennessee Public Welfare Manual, Vol. II. Public assistance. Rev.July 1969.
52.
State of Tennessee. Percent of welfare recipients referred who are now active and the percent of all active patients who are now on welfare. Quarterly Report, Layout Number 12. Nashville: August 12, 1972.
53.
Stoeckel, J., & Choudhury, M. A.The impact of family planning on fertility in a rural area of East Pakistan. Demography, 1967, 4, 569-575.
54.
Tennessee Family Planning Department. Department of Maternal and Child Health, Department of Public Health, 409 Capitol Towers, Nashville, Tennessee. Report prepared 8/12/72 for the month ending July 1972.
55.
Tillmon, J.Welfare is a women's issue. Ms., 1972, 1. Reprinted in C. C. Perrucci and D. B. Targ (Eds.), Marriage and the family. New York: David McKay, 1974. Pp. 108-116.
56.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Welfare policy and its consequences for the recipient population: A study of the AFDC program. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, GPO, December 1969.
57.
Van Til, J.Reconstruction or redistribution: Which way for welfare rights?Journal of Social Work, 197116,, 58-61.
58.
Williams, M.Active and dropout patients of a Planned Parenthood clinic system. Welfare in Review, 1971, 9, 10-16.
59.
Zald, M. N.Sociology and community organization practice. In M. N. Zald (Ed.), Organizing for community welfare. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1967. Pp. 27-61.
60.
Zawacki, A. A.A textbook for family planning field workers. Chicago: Community and Family Study Center, University of Chicago, 1971.
61.
Zetterberg, H. L.On theory and verification in sociology. Totowa, N.J.: The Bedminster Press, 1966.
